Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 626 (JHR)

Shree Krishna Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2014-05-15

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment R.Banumathi, C.J. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a practising Advocate of this Court seeking for a direction upon the respondents to implement the provisions of Article 47 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India for bringing prohibition in the State of Jharkhand and/or for bringing about gradual prohibition of the consumption of liquor, which is injurious to health except for medical purposes. 2. The brief facts are as follows:- The petitioner is a social activist and is deeply concerned with the evils of alcoholism in the Society, which, according to the petitioner, is not only increasing number of crimes but is also injurious to health of the common people. The State has been encouraging and freely and liberally giving licence for having wine shops on highways, which is completely against the directives of Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, whereby the State has been asked to review the licence and not to allow any liquor vans abreast the highways. Due to the liberal attitude of the State, tremendous increase of accidents on the highways was found and during the year 2011, total number of 24655 road accidents were reported due to intake of alcohol and drugs and similar alarming increase has been reported in the year 2012. In the State of Gujarat, there is complete prohibition on the consumption of liquor and then least number of road accidents is reported. It is the further case of the petitioner that drinking also gives rise to other crimes, like molestation and abuses and the petitioner also referred to an incident of molestation of girls by boys aged between 17 and 22 years reported in May, 2013. According to the petitioner, number of wine shops is increasing day by day and the information supplied from the year 2001-02 to the year 2011-12 indicates that the State Government has been increasing the target of collection of revenue from the sale of both country and foreign liquor. The target of revenue has been increased to Seventy Thousand lakhs for the year 2011-12 and in the year 2011, the State had also fixed the target of number of wine shops as 1720. According to the petitioner, inspite of constitutional provisions in Articles 47 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the State of Jharkhand has not taken steps to bring prohibition. According to the petitioner, inspite of constitutional provisions in Articles 47 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the State of Jharkhand has not taken steps to bring prohibition. The petitioner has, therefore, filed present Public Interest Litigation seeking for a direction upon the State of Jharkhand to strictly follow and implement the provisions of Articles 47 and 21 of the Constitution of India for bringing prohibition in the State. 3. Respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit referring to the various steps taken by the State of Jharkhand in regulating liquor shops and also to create awareness among the people to dissuade from drinking. According to the State, the policies framed by the Government of Jharkhand are aimed at regulating/controlling sale of liquor, in particular augmenting revenue resources of the State in general. 4. Mr.Jai Prakash Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which is one of the directive principles of the State Policy, the State should achieve the constitutional goal of prohibition in the State. Drawing our attention to the various statistics and newspaper clippings, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the State should adopt a policy for prevention of trade and business of alcohol in public places, such as school, bus stand, religious places etc. but the State is aiming at revenue by fixing higher target of liquor sale and prays for issuance of direction to the State to implement the provisions of Article 47 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India for bringing prohibition in the State of Jharkhand. 5. Learned Senior S.C II, Mr.A.Allam, appearing for the respondent-State submitted that Article 47 forms part of the “directive principles” in the Constitution of India and Article 37 enjoins that the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution shall not be enforceable by any court and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction for implementation of Article 47. Drawing our attention to the detailed counter affidavit, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in order to regulate the sale of liquor, check reckless consumption and ascertain the views of the people at large, enough safeguards have been made in the Jharkhand Excise Act. Drawing our attention to the detailed counter affidavit, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in order to regulate the sale of liquor, check reckless consumption and ascertain the views of the people at large, enough safeguards have been made in the Jharkhand Excise Act. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the various provisions of the Jharkhand Excise Act, 1915, which regulate the consumption of alcohol:-(a) Section 25 of the Act prohibits employment of any person below the age of 21 years in liquor shop; (b) Employment of women in liquor shops is prohibited; (c) Section 54 of the Act prohibits the sale of liquor to any person below the age of 21 years; and (d) Sale of any intoxicant is prohibited who is drunk or intoxicated. It was submitted that the duration and number of licenses are regulated by Rule 44, 45 and 46 made under Section 89 of the Act. 6. Prohibition is incorporated in the Constitution of India in the directive principles of State policy, that is, Part IV. Article 47 says, “The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health”. Alcohol policy is under the legislative power of individual States. It shall be the duty of the State to follow the directive principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution both in the matter of administration as well as in making laws. The provisions in Part IV of the Constitution embodies the aims and objects of the State, i.e. a welfare State. But the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution shall not be enforceable by any court. 7. Madras and Bombay (present day Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra) and Gujarat implemented prohibition between 1948 and 1950. Total prohibition was in operation in Madras (Tamil Nadu), Maharashtra, Gujarat and 11 districts of Andhra Pradesh from 1958 to 1969, and other sizable areas in Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Karnataka and Kerala. By 1954, one-fourth of India’s population was under prohibition. The Prohibition Enquiry Committee in 1954 set April, 1958 as the target to achieve national prohibition. 8. Total prohibition was in operation in Madras (Tamil Nadu), Maharashtra, Gujarat and 11 districts of Andhra Pradesh from 1958 to 1969, and other sizable areas in Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Karnataka and Kerala. By 1954, one-fourth of India’s population was under prohibition. The Prohibition Enquiry Committee in 1954 set April, 1958 as the target to achieve national prohibition. 8. Demands for prohibition gave way on account of the revenue earning. The potential loss in State revenue due to loss of excise revenue from the sale of alcohol discouraged most State Governments from enforcing prohibition on a long-term basis, as it accounts for almost 10 per cent of total State revenues, and in the case of Punjab, it is stated to be more than 10%. 9. Demands for prohibition slowly gave way to temperance as the negative effects of prohibition included wide-scale sale of spurious and cheap liquor which can cause health problems and deaths, the rise of organized crime and bootlegging due to the growth of a black market for alcohol. Apart from this, the resultant loss of jobs to people working in breweries and vineyards was another stumbling block. 10. Counter affidavit refers to various regulatory measures taken by the State of Jharkhand in imposing restriction on the sale of liquor in public places and also steps taken to dissuade people from drinking liquor. The habit of drinking is purely personal and should be solved only at the personal level. What is required is to kill the desire to drink, which involves change in the habits of men. This is a difficult task, which could be created only by promoting awareness. 11. Each State is empowered to formulate its opinion regarding prohibition policy, keeping in view the interest of its citizens. In the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration & Ors. [ (2001) 3 SCC 635 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional.” Since the implementation of prohibition is the policy of the State, the Court cannot issue any direction for implementation of prohibition. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional.” Since the implementation of prohibition is the policy of the State, the Court cannot issue any direction for implementation of prohibition. More so, when Article 37 enjoins that the directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India shall not be enforceable by any court of law, no direction could be issued to the State respondents to implement Article 47 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.